First of all, That’s My Boy was way better than Jack and Jill. The former was just utter crap. I was dragged to a theatre for You Don’t Mess with the Zohan and vowed never again will I pay money to see a Sandler movie. And in that case, a friend of my wife’s is a huge Sandler fan and made us go see Zohan.
VS.
And folks, here we see the SDMB’s two favorite things, squaring off in a battle to the death: elitism versus contrarianism! It’s like when the ancient Romans used to throw a bear and a tiger into the arena together just to see what would happen! 
Seriously though, picking at the word “unrefined” aside, you know we’re talking about films like Jack and Jill, whose entire schtick is built on “hurr-durr, doesn’t <name of straight male entertainer> look ugly in drag?” humor, fleshed out with double-digit quantities of fart jokes? Is it really inappropriate to call an adult unrefined for paying money to go see that?
It was the “It’s really quite sad” in the original post that led to my retort. Of course those movies are full of slapstick, coarse, unrefined humor. But who the fuck is Shawn1767 to declare people who enjoy that “sad” ?
As a redneck I take such comments as a form of micoraggession.
Shit, I am so sorry! I should have prefaced it with a “trigger warning.” 
I never liked Adam Sandler on SNL. I tried to watch Spanglish. The trailers for his comedies ensure that I am not going to see any of the movies. To my mind, the man is simply not funny. Not sad. Not bad. Just. Not. Funny. I don’t think that makes the people who like them sad or unrefined. Their taste for his humor is inexplicable to me. It’s like clowns. Who ever thought they were funny, and why? Just don’t get it.
I don’t know if I would consider Hotel Transylvania an Adam Sandler movie. Sure they threw an executive producer credit at him but it wasn’t a Happy Madison production. He was just a hired gun who came in to read lines.
Eddie Murphy’s "Nutty Professor wasn’t THAT bad, you know.
Pixels was a fun movie. It wasn’t great or as funny as I was wanting but it was fun.
Peter Dinklage was great in that role. Here’s a 1:30 featurette with Peter and his character.
I never said I liked Jack and Jill. (And neither did most of America; it lost money domestically.)
That’s not the point, though.
Hehe, I loved that movie. Of course, the drag and the fart jokes were confined to two eight-minute dinner table scenes.
The problem with Jack and Jill is that it sounds like that gag, stretched to feature film length and padded out with pratfalls and shilling.
I watched those. I found the review entertaining. The sketch part that bookeneded the reviews was about as funny and original as “Jack and Jill,” i.e., it sucked. But I did like the thoroughness with which they analyzed the movie. Their deliveries were flat, but mentally they were sharp and were all over the movie. However, I think they missed the problem with their accusations of near-criminality on Sandler’s part.
I agree, Sandler purposely made a subpar movie, well below what his talents and budget would have permitted, just to make the money. But he didn’t put a gun to anyone’s head to make them go see the movie. People chose to do that to themselves. If you could watch a trailer or an ad for “Jack and Jill” and not see what was coming, clearly you were its core audience.
The reason I think so many people are just enraged at Sanders for his movies is that he clearly sees his moviemaking as a way of making money and nothing else. He makes absolutely the minimal effort he needs to in order to turn out his films, takes absolutely no risks, dramatic or otherwise, and churns out safe lowbrow comedy after safe lowbrow comedy, on time and on budget, making millions in the process almost automatically. It is exactly the sort of movie an unambitious studio exec would greenlight automatically, which I imagine is what happens with Sandler’s movies.
And the source of the outrage is, so many people dream of being in movies, making movies in some way, are thrilled to be part of the industry or to know someone who is. They understand that is is a PRIVILEGE to be part of the grand moviemaking tradition. They see movies as an art form, and the effort to make really good movies as a struggle that great writers, directors, actors, etc., throw their lives and fortunes into.
Sandler’s vision of what a movie is and should be is EXACTLY the opposite of theirs, a cynical view of moviemaking as a low-effort way to make a lot of money, and nothing more. The art is all in the deal, for Sanders.
That’s why people are pissed at Sanders. And it’s a legit reason to be pissed. But it doesn’t mean Sanders is doing anything illegal, or even coming close to it. He’s making movies for idiots, it’s not his fault the idiots pay to see them. That’s where your critics are off.
I was flipping through the channels once and I landed on “That’s My Boy”. I started watching it out of morbid curiosity, and I thought it was pretty funny. Andy Samberg is a funny guy and Vanilla Ice was pretty wacky too.
I wouldn’t have paid $12 to see it in the theatre, though.
Reviews? Critics? On an Adam Sandler film? Nothing against him specifically but there is a class of film that I’ll watch just to be amused for an hour or so. When I’m in the mood for that type of film, I would never consider picking one based on reviews.
Sounds like the same crowd, or at least the same motivation, who get torqued way out of shape when a pro sports owner has more interest in making money than winning games and championships. There’s a real hatred, as if the owners/Sandler owe them a quality movie or a winning team, instead of them being businessmen interested in making a profit.
A pro sports team’s first duty is to win. And pro leagues are often not very forgiving when it comes to owners who purposely damage their teams out of a sense of business.
I guess I’m in the vast minority. I usually love Adam Sandler movies.
I liked them all save for Little Nicky, Just Go With It, Jack and Jill, and That’s My Boy, because I haven’t seen any of them yet.
There are different levels of “Sandler”.
The films you described are Sandler on around 2-3. Serious drama/comedy where he basically plays it straight.
Then you have Sandler rom-coms where he stars with Drew Barrymore (The Wedding Singer, 50 First Dates, Blended). In these films, he is generally likeable and charming. Sandler factor 4-5.
A step up you have Sandler rom-coms that don’t star Barrymore (Just Go With It, Click, Anger Management, Mr Deeds, Big Daddy). Usually he plays some successful bachelor dating a much younger and hotter actress. Still charming and normal. Often the straight man compared to the characters around him. Starting to get a bit over the top at times, but still grounded in reality. Also notice that more and more of his buddies are starting to appear in the films. Sandler factor 5-6
Next up is Sandler the crazy man-child (Happy Gilmore, Billy Madison, That’s My Boy). The jerk who won’t grow up. Lots of gross out comedy and gag jokes. All his buddies have bit parts. Sandler on 7-10.
And finally, you have the films where Sandler is in some over the top character the entire time (Little Nicky, The Waterboy, Jack and Jill, Don’t Mess With the Zohan). Often with some dumb voice. Sandler cranked to 11.
My personal theory is that Sandler at 10/11 worked when he was younger, and his target “Sandler Factor” decreased slowly with age. Like you want to see him struggling to kind of grow up at an age appropriate level. Not be Billy Madison or Bobby Bouche in his 40s. So when he exceeds that target, his films just sort of seem weird and suck (like Jack & Jill or That’s My Boy).
I don’t care what anyone says, Little Nicky was a god damn masterpiece. One of my favorite films, of any genre.
I generally like Sandler movies, though some look so dreadful I can’t bring myself to watch them. (Jack and Jill and That’s My Boy spring to mind.) I particularly enjoyed the first two Barrymore ones.
Sure- the* team’s *obligation is to win. The owner’s goal is to make money. Typically those two coincide- winning teams are generally more lucrative than losing ones. But they don’t have to- plenty of owners make lots of money on losing teams. They don’t have an obligation to improve the team any more than they see fit in order to make money for themselves- it’s not a charity, and they don’t have any real obligation to the fans or the community to win.